DPP challenges Busia Governor Ojamoong’s bid to have graft case quashed
The Director of Public Prosecution has asked the court to dismiss an application filed by Busia Governor Sospeter Ojamoong seeking to have the ongoing corruption case against him and others declared as a mistrial.
While responding to the application by the accused persons, the DPP on Monday said the petition is an effort by the petitioners to avoid their trial before Chief Magistrate Douglas Ogoti.
The DPP argues that Ojamoong and his co-accused “desperately seek to avoid at all costs due to their inability to mount any credible defense to the charges they face there and the evidence presented against them during the course of the trial.”
“In the circumstances, the prosecution avers that this Petition is res judicata and fits the bill for dismissal on that basis and it is nothing more than an abuse of the process of the court, ” reads court papers filed by the DPP.
Last week, the governor got a temporary relief after the High Court temporarily stopped his trial in the Ksh.8 million waste management graft case.
This is after the Governor filed a petition saying that he had suffered a mistrial when the prosecution lawyers threatened and intimidated his witness.
However, the DPP has denied the grounds raised by the governor and his co- accused persons saying that that there is no misconduct at all, nor any procedural error that has occurred in the proceedings to warrant a mistrial in the case.
Through State lawyer Grace Murungi appearing for the prosecution, the court has been told that the DPP has not concealed any documentary or any other evidence to the detriment of the accused persons including specific procurement plans and budgets relevant to the case as alleged by the Busia County boss.
According to the prosecution, the accused persons have litigated on the same matters and issues that they are raising again, a clear abuse of the process of the law.
“…the rulings delivered by both the trial court and the various high courts that were involved are matters that may be challenged by way of appeal or review or through the process provided for under the law but are not matters that can be addressed through a constitutional petition,” argues the DPP.
Meanwhile, the prosecution has further taken issue with the defence saying that the petitioners are recording the proceedings for the consumption of their witnesses, for purposes of witness coaching, which they argue is irregular and unlawful.